5 ms·

I really enjoy seeing new projects, especially now with Mozilla's updated TOS, but this project's page really bothers me! Why include a feature comparison tabl

I really enjoy seeing new projects, especially now with Mozilla's updated TOS, but this project's page really bothers me! Why include a feature comparison table with browsers like Chrome and Edge, but leave out Firefox? Your project is built on Firefox, and you even borrowed half of its name. Attribution matters. If Mozilla were to shut down Firefox and all its users left, would Waterfox even survive?

frereubu 2y ago
Yeah, reading this page with no mention of Firefox feels a bit weird - I was asking myself the whole time what the relationship is. All I needed was something saying "a privacy-preserving fork of Firefox" or similar to put that to bed so I could concentrate on the rest of the content.
- MrAlex94 2y ago
  Mozilla have made legal threats in the past about mentioning ANYTHING to do with Firefox. So I steer well clear. The irony(?) being we used to be listed on the Mozilla website :) https://web.archive.org/web/20121229210505/http://www.mozilla.org/projects/powered-by.html https://web.archive.org/web/20121229210505/http://www.mozill...
  - jisnsm 2y ago
    I’m pretty sure it’s completely legal to mention trademarks when comparing your product to others.
    - aaomidi 2y ago
      Are you backing that up with financial support if they get sued by overzealous lawyers?
    - MrAlex94 2y ago
      I had solicitors involved, they basically said you are in the right, but they have more money. Not a hill worth dying on.
    - Galanwe 2y ago
      Oracle is pretty famous for suing everyone willing to publish benchmarks or comparisons of Oracle DB.
  - hnuser123456 2y ago
    Thank you for maintaining this, glad to see it's still going. It was funny to see Mozilla fumble their policy update while apparently trying to be vague. I see your headline features are anti-tracking, private tabs, and container tabs, but do you still do any performance optimizations beyond Firefox, either in code or by compiler? Ah, I see you mention this for 6.5.0: "We have now bumped the “tuned” CPU code generation to match Skylake2 processor instruction sets. This should result in better performance if you have an Intel Skylake (or equivalent AMD processor) or better." Do you continue to see some measurable performance improvements in WF over FF thanks to compiler optimizations? Wish you the best with your v7.0 build system.
  - knowitnone 2y ago
    I don't know how they can sue for mentioning their product and that's very scummy behavior
mrbluecoat 2y ago
..as well as Brave browser
- ge96 2y ago
  We were working with azure bing 7 for API search had issues switched to Brave working so far. The results don't match but yeah (looking for PDFs).
  - DyslexicAtheist 2y ago
    brave is crypto snake-oil
lnx01 2y ago
Waterfox isn't new, its first release was in 2011. I used to run it because they had an x86-64 build when Firefox didn't.
- meitham 2y ago
  You're absolutely right but attribution is still the core issue here. I clicked on the page because it seemed like a promising alternative to Firefox, and I expected the focus to be on how it differs from Firefox. Instead, I was surprised to see Firefox completely ignored, especially when the project is clearly built on its foundation and even borrows part of its name. It feels like a missed opportunity to acknowledge the very platform that made Waterfox possible in the first place. Transparency and credit matter, especially in open-source projects.
  - MrAlex94 2y ago
    You aren't wrong, at all, but as mentioned I have run into issues with this in the past. I don't have enough income for the rigmarole Mozilla would put us through, even though I attempted in the past. FWIW in regards to features: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43206110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43206110
    - meitham 2y ago
      Thanks for keeping Waterfox alive despite Mozilla's hurdles. The feature list is great, exactly what people need when looking for a Firefox alternative. Putting it on the homepage would help a lot. Appreciate your work!
    - penguin_booze 2y ago
      OOC, what's the nature of development? Is it the case that this browser is a set of patches you maintain on top of Firefox trunk, or do you have to do some surgery every time Firefox makes a release? Do you try to keep up with Firefox releases?
- lolinder 2y ago
  Is it a hard fork that's been maintained since 2011 without pulling? Or is it a soft fork that's still pulling from upstream regularly? If it's the former attribution still matters, but if it's the latter lack of attribution is outright dishonest.
vik0 2y ago
Waterfox is not new
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
immibis 2y ago
What I really want to know is the difference between Waterfox, Librewolf, and Palemoon.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  Don't forget IceCat!
Jotalea 2y ago
Not a full comparison, but they do mention Firefox: > Waterfox is an impressive example of what a better version of Firefox can look like: leaner, faster, and without the desire to collect your data.

frereubu 2y ago

Yeah, reading this page with no mention of Firefox feels a bit weird - I was asking myself the whole time what the relationship is. All I needed was something saying "a privacy-preserving fork of Firefox" or similar to put that to bed so I could concentrate on the rest of the content.

MrAlex94 2y ago
Mozilla have made legal threats in the past about mentioning ANYTHING to do with Firefox. So I steer well clear. The irony(?) being we used to be listed on the Mozilla website :) https://web.archive.org/web/20121229210505/http://www.mozilla.org/projects/powered-by.html https://web.archive.org/web/20121229210505/http://www.mozill...
- jisnsm 2y ago
  I’m pretty sure it’s completely legal to mention trademarks when comparing your product to others.
  - aaomidi 2y ago
    Are you backing that up with financial support if they get sued by overzealous lawyers?
  - MrAlex94 2y ago
    I had solicitors involved, they basically said you are in the right, but they have more money. Not a hill worth dying on.
  - Galanwe 2y ago
    Oracle is pretty famous for suing everyone willing to publish benchmarks or comparisons of Oracle DB.
- hnuser123456 2y ago
  Thank you for maintaining this, glad to see it's still going. It was funny to see Mozilla fumble their policy update while apparently trying to be vague. I see your headline features are anti-tracking, private tabs, and container tabs, but do you still do any performance optimizations beyond Firefox, either in code or by compiler? Ah, I see you mention this for 6.5.0: "We have now bumped the “tuned” CPU code generation to match Skylake2 processor instruction sets. This should result in better performance if you have an Intel Skylake (or equivalent AMD processor) or better." Do you continue to see some measurable performance improvements in WF over FF thanks to compiler optimizations? Wish you the best with your v7.0 build system.
- knowitnone 2y ago
  I don't know how they can sue for mentioning their product and that's very scummy behavior

mrbluecoat 2y ago

..as well as Brave browser

ge96 2y ago
We were working with azure bing 7 for API search had issues switched to Brave working so far. The results don't match but yeah (looking for PDFs).
- DyslexicAtheist 2y ago
  brave is crypto snake-oil

lnx01 2y ago

Waterfox isn't new, its first release was in 2011. I used to run it because they had an x86-64 build when Firefox didn't.

meitham 2y ago
You're absolutely right but attribution is still the core issue here. I clicked on the page because it seemed like a promising alternative to Firefox, and I expected the focus to be on how it differs from Firefox. Instead, I was surprised to see Firefox completely ignored, especially when the project is clearly built on its foundation and even borrows part of its name. It feels like a missed opportunity to acknowledge the very platform that made Waterfox possible in the first place. Transparency and credit matter, especially in open-source projects.
- MrAlex94 2y ago
  You aren't wrong, at all, but as mentioned I have run into issues with this in the past. I don't have enough income for the rigmarole Mozilla would put us through, even though I attempted in the past. FWIW in regards to features: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43206110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43206110
  - meitham 2y ago
    Thanks for keeping Waterfox alive despite Mozilla's hurdles. The feature list is great, exactly what people need when looking for a Firefox alternative. Putting it on the homepage would help a lot. Appreciate your work!
  - penguin_booze 2y ago
    OOC, what's the nature of development? Is it the case that this browser is a set of patches you maintain on top of Firefox trunk, or do you have to do some surgery every time Firefox makes a release? Do you try to keep up with Firefox releases?
lolinder 2y ago
Is it a hard fork that's been maintained since 2011 without pulling? Or is it a soft fork that's still pulling from upstream regularly? If it's the former attribution still matters, but if it's the latter lack of attribution is outright dishonest.

vik0 2y ago

Waterfox is not new

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

immibis 2y ago

What I really want to know is the difference between Waterfox, Librewolf, and Palemoon.

wakawaka28 2y ago
Don't forget IceCat!

Jotalea 2y ago

Not a full comparison, but they do mention Firefox: > Waterfox is an impressive example of what a better version of Firefox can look like: leaner, faster, and without the desire to collect your data.